APPEAL FORM IN TERMS OF THE NEMA EIA REGULATIONS

Transcription

1 APPEAL FORM IN TERMS OF THE NEMA EIA REGULATIONS Ministry of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (A digital copy of this form may be obtained from the Department s website at ). Please address your completed appeal to: Western Cape Ministry of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Private Bag X9186 CAPE TOWN 8000 ATTENTION : Mr Jaap de Villiers jedevill@pgwc.gov.za NOTE: Tel: (021) or Fax: (021) Appeals not submitted to the above address will not be regarded as valid; 2. Information requested must be provided in the spaces allocated therefore. Additional pages may be attached if the allocated space is insufficient; 3. Your appeal submission should be brief, clearly explained and to the point; 4. A copy of your Notice of Intention to Appeal must be attached (ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE 2) to this document when submitted to the Department; and 5. This form must be duly signed by the appellant and witnessed. A. PROJECT INFORMATION Reference Number: (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning) DEA&DP Reference Number: E12/2/3/2-A5/ /09 Project Description: (PLEASE PRINT) PROPOSED FILLING STATION ON ERF 4340, KOMMETJIE Date of issue of the Decision: 22 February 2012 Type of Appeal (please circle the appropriate options):

2 Environmental Authorisation B. APPELLANT'S INFORMATION I as the Appellant am: (Please tick the appropriate box below) the applicant a registered interested and affected party other (please specify) (Please Print) Name: THEO VERRIDJT FOR THE KOMMETJIE RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION (KRRA) Address: Postal: P.O. BOX KOMMETJIE 7976 Physical: C/O 45 Lighthouse Rd Kommetjie Tel: Cell: Fax: AS ABOVE theo@sashatrust.co.za C. APPEAL NOTICE INFORMATION: 1. Please indicate the date you were notified of the Department s decision. 1 MARCH Are you a registered Interested & Affected Party (I&AP) or the applicant? A registered I&AP 2

3 Have you lodged a Notice of Intention to Appeal within 10 days of being notified of the decision taken by the Department? Yes 3. Please indicate the date your Notice of Intention to Appeal was lodged with the MEC. 4. Has this Notice of Intention to appeal been served on the Applicant/ all Registered I&AP s? Yes to the Applicant 5. Please indicate the dates on which this was done. 22 March Did the Notice indicate where and for what period the appeal submission will be available for inspection? Yes 7. Please indicate where and for what period the appeal submission has been made available for inspection./ Explain why this was not done. The appeal submission is available for inspection at Kommetjie Library, Somerset Way, 7976 It is available for inspection from 17 April 2012 for a period of 30 days until 17 May Has the relevant application fee been paid? (please attach proof of payment) N/A D. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 10. Provide a statement setting out the grounds of your appeal. The KRRA appeals against the decision to approve the development of a filling station on erf 4340 Sunnydale because we are of the opinion that:- There is insufficient evidence provided regarding improved groundwater leakage prevention technology to completely reverse the earlier decision not to allow the development on these grounds. The development will reinforce the ethos and impetus for a major industrial node in an area where this is entirely inappropriate and will undermine the generally acknowledged basis for the economy of the Southern peninsula. The environmental knock-ons from such a decision will: i. exacerbate impacts on the Noordhoek wetlands system and associated geohydrology through possible leaks and unavoidable forecourt and workshop runoff. To quote from the 1999 Review Study of the Geohydrology of the Noordhoek Basin by M. van Wieringen and Associates: Pollution of this aquifer is likely to become of concern as its band of recharge is impinged upon by nutrient and other mineral-rich run-off from developed areas. 3

4 ii. iii. iv. Assurances provided in the authorization with regard to this aspect of the study are problematic. There is acknowledgement in the specialist reports that risks of pollution are high, but then an unconvincing statement that the filling station should not have a significant impact if the recommendations proposed were implemented. We are then told that the recommendations have been made conditions of approval. This offers little assurance as in our experience DEA&DP does not have the capacity to monitor compliance with such conditions confirmed by preliminary research on the matter. contribute to a growing solid waste problem in the area adding many non-domestic elements to the mix and increasing the likelihood of dumping and litter as the area is increasingly seen as degraded and of little environmental worth. pave the way for cumulative impacts based on further rezoning applications that will see this as a precedent More desperate people flocking to area in search of elusive jobs and taking up informal residence in wetlands owing to current shortage of other housing. This is a serious non-direct but realistic consequence of the approval. As low cost housing provision does not produce the sort of profit returns that most developers seek there are likely to be more applications for industrial and commercial rezoning using the additional job promise as motivation. Greater population influx can be anticipated in response to this and further entirely unsustainable informal housing arrangements. Local authorities have shown little interest in buying land for low cost housing. The vicious cycle aspect of this reasoning has not been addressed in the approval. The development will have serious socio-economic impacts on more low key and sustainable activities like village markets and commonage meeting space Little heed has been paid to local, regional, national, global scientific discussion papers, policies, frameworks and reports regarding energy, climate, water, food security etc. The following quote from the Provincial Spatial Development Framework serves as a relevant example of high order planning guidelines being ignored: The principles and directives in this provincial wide structure plan represent a sincere and thorough effort to present a set of policies and actions to address the challenges identified in the analysis phase. Examples of these challenges, with respect to the natural environment, would be: water scarcity, poor water quality and pollution, traffic congestion, air pollution and destruction of biodiversity, agricultural land and scenic landscapes. The reasons for the decision listed in the notice of environmental authorization are little more than a checklist of procedural tasks completed in the process. The development, being neither needed nor desirable, does not meet the criteria for sustainable development. By being approved it threatens to further erode the definition of what sustainable development should mean and could lead to an acceleration of degradation in the area. A quote from the Provincial EIA Guideline and Information Document Series: Guideline on Need and Desirability 2010 is relevant here. What is needed and desired for a specific area must, however, be strategically and democratically determined. With time being required for prolonged and active engagement it, however, becomes clear that the ad hoc nature of project-level EIA decision-making, with limited opportunities for public engagement, and the reality of time and resource constraints, do not allow for prolonged participative processes, and can therefore never substitute or replace the participative processes that should frame and inform all democratic decision-making. The strategic context for informing need and desirability is therefore best addressed and determined during the formulation of the sustainable 4

5 development vision, goals and objectives of Integrated Development Plans ( IDPs ) and Spatial Development Frameworks ( SDFs ) during which collaborative and participative processes play an integral part, and are given effect to, in the democratic processes at local government level. (our emphasis) It should be noted that all public engagements at strategic (SDF) level the vast majority of residents of the Far South Peninsula have been quite clear in stating the features they see as needed and desirable in the area. Industrial and commercial creep is not amongst them. 11. Is your appeal based on factors associated with the process that was followed by the applicant/the Department in obtaining/issuing authorization or/ refusal or/ amendment or /withdrawal or/ disqualification? No (Circle the appropriate response). Please provide details. 12. Is your appeal based on factors associated with matters of unacceptable environmental impacts/extenuating circumstances not taken into account by the competent authority? Yes (Circle the appropriate response). Please provide details. In our opinion the development is not consistent with the provisions and the spirit of the Peninsula Urban Structure Plan where the emphasis is on conservation of the mountain area, the encouragement of low impact activities that keep extraction and pollution to the minimum. 13. Have your appeal issues been raised previously in the public participation process? Yes (Circle the appropriate response). Please provide details. Some of them have as our organization has been involved in each stage of the EIA process, but we feel that our concerns have never been adequately addressed. 14. Are you fundamentally opposed to any development activity on the site? No (Circle the appropriate response). Please provide details. We would not be opposed to lower physical impact activities with a more community marketplace feel about them. 5

6 15. Are you in favour of the decision of the Department if your concerns can be remedied by rectifying the process or by mitigating or eliminating the impacts of the activity? NO (Circle the appropriate response) 16. Please indicate what measures you propose to have your concerns remedied. Open up the proposal for the use of erf 4340 for broader public consultation around options that would not require consent use. Define sound, scientifically based hydrological guidelines and no-go activities for the area Put a moratorium on all new development along Kommetje rd until such time as its future ito upgrades, pedestrian safety, non-motorised transport accommodation, scenic route status etc have been finalized. 17. Does your appeal contain any new information that was not submitted to the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) /or registered I&AP s/ or the Department prior to the Department's decision? Yes (Circle the appropriate response) If the answer above is "Yes" please explain what this information is and why it should be considered by the MEC and why it was not made available to the EAP/ or I&AP/ or the Department prior to the decision. (Please ensure that the new information is attached hereto.) Relevant extracts from the referenced documents have been included above. They are too long to be appended, but can be provided should further discussion be required. It is assumed that some of the information, like Provincial policy is easily accessible to and known of by the MEC. 18. Please clearly list your appeal issues. Groundwater quality Destruction of rural ethos Ignoring of relevant scientific reports and planning guidelines 6

7 Unconsidered cumulative impacts resulting from the approval Little attention paid to overarching considerations of climate change, energy, water and waste. Provincial reasons for decision shallow 19. Please provide an explanation of why you listed each issue in section 18 above. The issues have been explained under 10 Grounds for appeal 20. Please provide details of how you will be or have been affected by each issue listed under 18 above. This is included with the issues listed above. In addition residents of the sub-region are affected daily by the consequences of development such as the one under consideration here. Such impacts include: 3 km long traffic tailbacks on Kommetjie Rd seriously increasing emissions and leading to air quality deterioration Regular blooms of blue green algae in Wildevoelvlei Regular reports of sewerage works not coping with phosphate and nitrate loads Negative impacts on tourist industry affecting members involved in this Loss of local rate base as people who thought they were going to live in a rural retreat put their houses on the market Appellant s Signature Place Date Kommetjie 16 April 2012 Kirstenhof 16 April 2012 Witness Place Date 7

8 APPENDIX 2 22 March 2012 FAX Mr P Olden The Board of Directors In Depth Resources (Pty)(Ltd) P O Box 2445 BELLVILLE 7535 Fax : Dear Sir NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAL : PROPOSED FILLING STATION ON ERF 4340, KOMMETJIE I attach hereto a copy of the Notice of Intention to Appeal as sent to the office of the Western Cape Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, indicating my intention to appeal against the decision of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning for the above proposed development. Please take note that the appeal document will be available for inspection at Kommetjie Library and at Kommetjie.org for your inspection for a period of 30 days from 14 April 2012 to 14 May 2012 Yours faithfully Theo Verridjt Deputy Chair KRRA 8

9 9